Discuss the latest comic book news and front page articles, read or post your own reviews of comics, and talk about anything comic book related. Threads from the two subforums below will also show up here. News Stand topics can also be read and posted in from The Asylum.

Herald wrote:If you have to stop to consider whether superheroes should go into action, the heroes need to stop and wait while you mull it over. And that's all the time Galactus needs...

OMFG, Herald. I AM NOT AGAINST THE FF STOPPING GALACTUS.

And, hey Ozymandias acted pretty quickly, too. 35 minutes ago, early. If 'some problems have to be solved quickly' is an argument for 'there is nothing remotely complex about the ethics of vigilantism' then it can just as easily be an argument for the ends justify the means.

You've said that you believe in "the ends justify the means".You've said MORE than enough, right there.

Are you saying that everyone who thinks that the ends justify the means is an Objectivist? Because that's literally nonsense.

Watch me:

"You're citizens, so you just 'citizen's arrest' the bad guys. If you start killing people, we arrest YOU."

See, you still believe in that false dichotomy. You can't conceive of only allowing superheroes that don't kill. Just as we have rules for how you can drive your car, there can be rules for superheroes.

I can conceive of it BUT THAT'S NOT THE PRINCIPLE BEING DEFENDED. Chessack said that superheroes have a responsibility to fight evil because they had the power to stop it. I said that's not sufficient. For example, maybe you would need to add to that a taboo against killing, as you suggest.

Well, if you that's what you think, then you have conceded that Chessack's principle is not sufficient. In other words, you've fucking lost the argument.

You seem to be saying that allowing superheroes to save the day means allowing superheroes to use ANY means -- including killing -- to save the day. Is this not the case?

NO! Of course it's not the case. Now, I'll ask you again, is it OK for superheroes to operate outside the law?

Again, you think that allowing superheroes to beat the bad guys means they should be allowed to use ANY means -- including killing -- to do so.

No. I didn't.

I am addressing you point. So YOU address MINE.

No-one has ever failed to address a point as much as you have failed to address mine.

But let me address the point that you seem to be making here, for the millionth time. Believing that the ethics of vigilantism are a legitimate topic for a story to explore DOES NOT ENTAIL THAT YOU THINK YOU SHOULD LET GALACTUS DESTROY A PLANET AND ONLY A VERY DENSE PERSON COULD POSSIBLY THINK THAT IT DID.

Now then, are you going to address my point or not?

So what? Ozymandias doesn't go to ANY means to achieve his ends, either.

So, "framing Manhattan, killing the Comedian, framing Rorschach for the murder of Moloch, and staging the attempt on his own life, forcing a cyanide pill down the attacker's throat" don't count as "ANY means" to you??!!

Man, you ARE a villain. You have NO moral compass WHATSOEVER.

No. For example, he wouldn't have done that if there had been another option available to him that involved saving more lives. He would take the action that led to the best consequences.

IYou think that "Ozymandias doesn't go to ANY means to achieve his ends". You have NO moral compass WHATSOEVER.

Even if that's true IT'S COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

Again.

We are NOT talking about whether Spider-Man is more moral than Rorshach. We are talking about whether letting people go around enforcing their own moral code without deference to the appropriate authorities is a good idea.

Again, you espouse a false dichotomy. There are methods that they shouldn't be using, if they are to operate.

What dichotomy? What the fuck are you even talking about?

I AM NOT SAYING THAT SUPERHEROES SHOULD GO AROUND KILLING PEOPLE! I AM NOT SAYING THAT THEY SHOULD NOT HELP ANYONE EVER. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THESE ARE THE ONLY TWO POSSIBILITIES.

A true superhero doesn't seek to blow up other people's property.

What if the vigilante is NOT a true superhero? What if it's Rorshach? Or the Punisher? Well, then you'd have to have some more sophisticated rules than, 'they have the power, therefore they have the responsibility to enforce their code,' wouldn't you? Kind of like what I've been saying. Repeatedly.

Herald wrote:And how about them cell phones? I see you didn't address those!

So?

One example is sufficient.

What's your response?

What's that? I don't really care that much about Marvel? I have said so MANY times? In fact, DURING THIS VERY CONVERSATION, I slagged the 616 as a ridiculously Crapsack World that is morally inferior to the real DC Universe? And thus, it's no surprise at all to me that some of Marvel's "heroes" stooped to this level? That this seems par for the course, comics in the usual Miserable Marvel Manner?

Oh. Well, I guess you'll need a new argument, then. Huh.

So, you take Iron Man's side, then? You think that superheroics should be allowed but that there should be additional legislation in place to deal with the Rorshachs and Punishers of the world?

PDH wrote:Almost like the question of how to handle vigilantism is more complicated than, 'let people decide for themselves who the bad guys are and how they should be treated as long as they have the power to take matters into their own hands.'

Herald wrote:Almost like the question of how to handle superheroes is to not let them use just any mode of operations in the first place.

You realise, that you are conceding the entire argument with this sentence, right? Because that's exactly what I'm saying. I mean, these quotes are almost exactly the same. The only difference is that yours is more specific about what needs to be added to the principle Chessack outlined. That's it.

So, thank you for admitting that I was completely right. I will only boast about this in every subsequent thread for the rest of time.

He acted wrongly. And it's no surprise that you have no problem with his actions.

If 'some problems have to be solved quickly' is an argument for 'there is nothing remotely complex about the ethics of vigilantism' then it can just as easily be an argument for the ends justify the means.

No, you can take quick action that does the job right, as opposed to what your pal did.

Are you saying that everyone who thinks that the ends justify the means is an Objectivist? Because that's literally nonsense.

I'm not interested in your labels. I'm just telling you what you said, Mr. Supervillain.

Watch me:

"You're citizens, so you just 'citizen's arrest' the bad guys. If you start killing people, we arrest YOU."

See, you still believe in that false dichotomy. You can't conceive of only allowing superheroes that don't kill. Just as we have rules for how you can drive your car, there can be rules for superheroes.

I can conceive of it BUT THAT'S NOT THE PRINCIPLE BEING DEFENDED. Chessack said that superheroes have a responsibility to fight evil because they had the power to stop it. I said that's not sufficient. For example, maybe you would need to add to that a taboo against killing, as you suggest.

Well, if you that's what you think, then you have conceded that Chessack's principle is not sufficient. In other words, you've fucking lost the argument.

Who said that Chessack's argument was completely the same as MY argument??"What happens when we assume??"

You seem to be saying that allowing superheroes to save the day means allowing superheroes to use ANY means -- including killing -- to save the day. Is this not the case?

NO! Of course it's not the case.

And yet, you keep saying that allowing, say, Spider-Man to operate also allows the Punisher to operate. So, to quote you: "Which is it?"

Now, I'll ask you again, is it OK for superheroes to operate outside the law?

You think that gives ANYbody license to do ANYthing, including killing.

No. I didn't.

Yes, you do. You think allowing Spider-Man to operate also allows the Punisher to operate.

I am addressing you point. So YOU address MINE.

No-one has ever failed to address a point as much as you have failed to address mine.

But let me address the point that you seem to be making here, for the millionth time. Believing that the ethics of vigilantism are a legitimate topic for a story to explore DOES NOT ENTAIL THAT YOU THINK YOU SHOULD LET GALACTUS DESTROY A PLANET AND ONLY A VERY DENSE PERSON COULD POSSIBLY THINK THAT IT DID.

You argument espouses an "All or Nothing" proposition: Allowing people like Spider-Man to operate also allows people like the Punisher to operate. Thus, to keep Punisher from killing people as he sees fit, we must disallow any heroes to operate at all. In comes Galactus...

Now then, are you going to address my point or not?

I keep telling you that we can set up rules of operation for heroes.

So what? Ozymandias doesn't go to ANY means to achieve his ends, either.

So, "framing Manhattan, killing the Comedian, framing Rorschach for the murder of Moloch, and staging the attempt on his own life, forcing a cyanide pill down the attacker's throat" don't count as "ANY means" to you??!!

Man, you ARE a villain. You have NO moral compass WHATSOEVER.

No. For example, he wouldn't have done that if there had been another option available to him that involved saving more lives. He would take the action that led to the best consequences.

We are NOT talking about whether Spider-Man is more moral than Rorshach. We are talking about whether letting people go around enforcing their own moral code without deference to the appropriate authorities is a good idea.

And here you are AGAIN, STILL claiming that to let superheroes operate is to let EVERYone do ANYthing they want! Clearly, it's NOT as dead an issue as you claim, because right here, you're saying it AGAIN!

Again, you espouse a false dichotomy. There are methods that they shouldn't be using, if they are to operate.

What dichotomy?

Either the superheroes do nothing, or we "[let] people go around enforcing their own moral code without deference to the appropriate authorities".

But there's a MIDDLE ground in there. We can let superheroes save the day, but forbid them from killing (as one example).

I AM NOT SAYING THAT SUPERHEROES SHOULD GO AROUND KILLING PEOPLE! I AM NOT SAYING THAT THEY SHOULD NOT HELP ANYONE EVER. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THESE ARE THE ONLY TWO POSSIBILITIES.

YOU KEEP SAYING THAT TO ALLOW SPIDER-MAN IS TO ALSO ALLOW THE PUNISHER. THAT IS AN "ALL OR NOTHING" PROPOSITION, WHETHER YOU UNDERSTAND THAT OR NOT.

What if the vigilante is NOT a true superhero? What if it's Rorshach? Or the Punisher?

I already gave you an example.AGAIN:

"You're citizens, so you just 'citizen's arrest' the bad guys. If you start killing people, we arrest YOU."

Well, then you'd have to have some more sophisticated rules than, 'they have the power, therefore they have the responsibility to enforce their code,' wouldn't you? Kind of like what I've been saying. Repeatedly.

No, people like Rorshach and the Punisher do NOT "have the responsibility to enforce their code".

"You're citizens, so you just 'citizen's arrest' the bad guys. If you start killing people, we arrest YOU."

Kind of like what I'VE been saying. REPEATEDLY.

If I damage my computer screen because of how hard I just banged my head into it, I am sending the bill to your asylum.

I'll try to use smaller, easier words, so you'll be less frustrated, then.

Last edited by Herald on Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

So, since my one example stands and "is sufficient", you DO concede that I'm right.

There's hope for you, yet.

So, you take Iron Man's side, then? You think that superheroics should be allowed but that there should be additional legislation in place to deal with the Rorshachs and Punishers of the world?

Man, you just LOVE false dichotomies, I see. Here you are, assuming that I MUST take Iron Man's side, as opposed to Captain America's side. NO middle ground, NO third option. Tsk. Tsk.

PDH wrote:You realise, that you are conceding the entire argument with this sentence, right?

Not at all.

Because that's exactly what I'm saying. I mean, these quotes are almost exactly the same.

Then you lack reading comprehension.

The only difference is that yours is more specific about what needs to be added to the principle Chessack outlined. That's it.

Nobody but YOU said that society should "let people decide for themselves who the bad guys are and how they should be treated as long as they have the power to take matters into their own hands". Again, you warped the whole thing into a false dichotomy. Both Chessack and I have argued AGAINST heroes killing, for example.

So, thank you for admitting that I was completely right. I will only boast about this in every subsequent thread for the rest of time.

Well, you already admitted that you think that "the ends justify the means", and so, such wrongheaded actions, based on something that never actually happened, would further demonstrate that wrongheaded belief.

Like far too many bad guys, you Cannot Comprehend Good. Like Lex finding out that Superman is Clark Kent in issue TWO of the post-Crisis Superman, you disbelieve the truth laid out right in front of you because you can't understand the other side.

PDH wrote:If you let people take the law into their own hands, you don't get to decide how they will handle that. Another person might have a completely different idea of what 'true' heroes should and shouldn't do. This is why rules have to be for everyone and it's tricky to come up with a rule that makes room for Spider-Man without opening the door to the Punisher.

Or say all rules that apply to the citizenry also apply to the legislators, executive branch members and their delegates, and judiciary....

Oh wait, its almost by definition that all the same rules do NOT apply to everyone.

- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.- A character IS his continuity.- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.

john lewis hawk wrote:Logic and realty does not work in this thread, dude.

Neither logic nor fixed property work?

- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.- A character IS his continuity.- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.

Herald wrote:So, since my one example stands and "is sufficient", you DO concede that I'm right.

There's hope for you, yet.

Man, you just LOVE false dichotomies, I see. Here you are, assuming that I MUST take Iron Man's side, as opposed to Captain America's side. NO middle ground, NO third option. Tsk. Tsk.

Not at all.

Then you lack reading comprehension.

Nobody but YOU said that society should "let people decide for themselves who the bad guys are and how they should be treated as long as they have the power to take matters into their own hands". Again, you warped the whole thing into a false dichotomy. Both Chessack and I have argued AGAINST heroes killing, for example.

Well, you already admitted that you think that "the ends justify the means", and so, such wrongheaded actions, based on something that never actually happened, would further demonstrate that wrongheaded belief.

Like far too many bad guys, you Cannot Comprehend Good. Like Lex finding out that Superman is Clark Kent in issue TWO of the post-Crisis Superman, you disbelieve the truth laid out right in front of you because you can't understand the other side.

You can't comprehend not killing hookers, either.

"I have my heroes, but no one knows their names"- Sons of the Desert

Strict31 wrote:I'm not sure that combining the nigh-uncontrollable power of LOLtron with the Nacireman is a good idea. Some years from now, when mankind is on the verge of extinction, we'll be able to look back and remember this moment, and say, "DANG."

Herald wrote:He acted wrongly. And it's no surprise that you have no problem with his actions.

Hold on, Herald, your argument was that we shouldn't care about what methods superheroes use because they protect us from world-ending threats like Galactus. Well, a nuclear war is a world-ending threat, as well, and Ozymandias rescued everyone from that.

So you have to either amend your original statements or accept that Ozy was right. Which will it be?

I'm not interested in your labels. I'm just telling you what you said, Mr. Supervillain

If you're not interested in the meaning of words then it's no surprise that you don't understand what I wrote. Regardless, these are not 'my' labels. I didn't invent Objectivism. I wasn't even born when it was invented.

Believing that the ends justify the means does not make you an Objectivist. If you understood the meaning of the words being used, then you would see why this is the case.

Given that you claim not to be interested in the distinctions between radically different moral theories, I have to question whether you really care about morality at all. After all, wouldn't a person who cared about morality have made some effort to study it at some point? Wouldn't they at least care about the meaning of the relevant terms?

Who said that Chessack's argument was completely the same as MY argument??

If you don't think that Chessack's position is sufficient then you agree with me and this entire discussion is even more of a waste of everyone's time than it appears to be.

And yet, you keep saying that allowing, say, Spider-Man to operate also allows the Punisher to operate. So, to quote you: "Which is it?"

No, I don't. I said that Chessack's principle alone would permit both Spider-Man and the Punisher. You agreed that I was right about this.

You think that gives ANYbody license to do ANYthing, including killing.

No. I don't.

Yes, you do.

No. I don't.

You think allowing Spider-Man to operate also allows the Punisher to operate.

NO I DON'T.

(And even if I did that is completely different from saying that it gives 'ANYbody license to do ANYthing.')

What I said, for the millionth time, was that Chessack's principle does not by itself distinguish between Spider-Man and the Punisher. To get that result you have to add extra stuff to e.g. prohibit killing. You have acknowledged this. You have therefore admitted that I was right.

You argument espouses an "All or Nothing" proposition: Allowing people like Spider-Man to operate also allows people like the Punisher to operate. Thus, to keep Punisher from killing people as he sees fit, we must disallow any heroes to operate at all. In comes Galactus...

No, it doesn't!

In order to make it seem like it does you have to pretend I'm saying something totally different. It is a straw-man argument. I have told you this so many times that I have lost count.

I keep telling you that we can set up rules of operation for heroes.

And I keep telling YOU that this constitutes additional principles on top of what Chessack argued for, therefore my entire argument, which is nothing more than 'Chessack's principle is insufficient' is correct by your own admission.

Irrelevant. The point was about whether Ozy would do ANYTHING. He wouldn't. You are wrong.

But while we're on this subject, the story in question stipulates that he was right about this being the best option (and also that he was the most intelligent man in the world). There is a third option in most superhero stories because the writer decides that there is. That's why superhero stories are an extremely bad place to get moral advice from. In real life we can't magic a perfect solution to all of our problems. In real life we have to do the best that we can with what we've got.

If you tried to take this lesson and apply it to, say, real-life police, you would have to conclude that there are never any situations where it is OK for a policeman to shoot a criminal, which is simply false.

And here you are AGAIN, STILL claiming that to let superheroes operate is to let EVERYone do ANYthing they want! Clearly, it's NOT as dead an issue as you claim, because right here, you're saying it AGAIN!

I didn't claim it in that quote. I haven't claimed it in any other quote. I have repeatedly denied it and said that it was utterly false.

My point is nothing more than 'Chessack's principle is insufficient.' That is all it has ever been.

Either the superheroes do nothing, or we "[let] people go around enforcing their own moral code without deference to the appropriate authorities".

But there's a MIDDLE ground in there. We can let superheroes save the day, but forbid them from killing (as one example).

I KNOW THERE'S A MIDDLE GROUND.

Not only have I not EVER, once, said that there isn't I have now repeatedly said that there is and that this is precisely what I am arguing for and always have been.

STOP FUCKING STRAW-MANNING ME.

YOU KEEP SAYING THAT TO ALLOW SPIDER-MAN IS TO ALSO ALLOW THE PUNISHER. THAT IS AN "ALL OR NOTHING" PROPOSITION, WHETHER YOU UNDERSTAND THAT OR NOT.

NO

I

DON'T

I already gave you an example.AGAIN:

"You're citizens, so you just 'citizen's arrest' the bad guys. If you start killing people, we arrest YOU."

Which implies - as in logically implies - that you need a more sophisticated set of rules than 'they have the power, therefore they have the responsibility to enforce their code.'

No, people like Rorshach and the Punisher do NOT "have the responsibility to enforce their code".

I KNOW. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING!

Kind of like what I'VE been saying. REPEATEDLY.

What you have been saying REPEATEDLY, is that I am NOT saying this. But I am.

I am saying that allowing people to take the law into their own hands so long as they the power to do because they have the responsibility to enforce their moral code is not necessarily a good idea. If you agree that you need a 'middle-ground' position between Spider-Man and Rorshach, then you agree with me.

But that would mean you having to admit that you were wrong about something. So instead of that, you have been straw-manning my position. Constantly.

I mean, how many times have I had to correct your misrepresentations just in this one post? You're absolutely ridiculous.

Last edited by PDH on Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The best part was when Black Panther was trying to save Sun God saying he could come back to Earth 616 and Sun God was like "Fuck that business" and Black Panther was like "Aight nigga, I wuz jus' bein' polite." and he no longer gave a fuck. That shit was colder than what Ghost T'Chaka said to his son.

So, since my one example stands and "is sufficient", you DO concede that I'm right.

Herald, what are you even arguing about? Can you remember?

Are you arguing that there shouldn't be any additional rules governing the behaviour of superheroes, such as 'don't kill people'?

Because that's the significance of the car analogy. We let people drive cars but there are various additional rules there for various sensible reasons like protecting members of the public from dangerous drivers.

And that's basically what I'm saying, yeah? That, in the context of a superhero story, superheroes should be allowed but we can't just let them do whatever they want in accordance with their own code. There needs to be some degree of deference to society and its rules concerning vigilantism.

But here you seem to be challenging the car analogy. Why?

Nobody but YOU said that society should "let people decide for themselves who the bad guys are and how they should be treated as long as they have the power to take matters into their own hands". Again, you warped the whole thing into a false dichotomy. Both Chessack and I have argued AGAINST heroes killing, for example.

Chessack said that heroes had the power to fight evil and this gave them the responsibility to do so.

I said that this wasn't enough.

And it's not. You think you have to add the principle that they can't kill, for example. I don't think that Chessack approves of heroes killing but I do think that the ethics of vigilantism are more complicated than he makes out and that this is worth exploring in fiction.

I never warped anything into a false dichotomy. I didn't even present a dichotomy, of any kind. On the contrary, I've been arguing for a 'middle-ground' position from the start. The only person warping the conversation is you by constantly trying to present me as someone claiming something I'm not.

I said that 'responsibility to uphold moral theory + power' is a recipe for disaster because 'moral theory' isn't specific enough to refer only to those moral theories safe enough to be upheld by very powerful beings as it could easily refer to e.g. Rorshach's version of Randian Objectivism. In order to get the desired results you would have to add a lot of extra information about which moral theory we were using. Because societies contain a plurality of often incompatible moral theories, you need to be very careful when you're designing its rules, especially when a set of people have declared themselves to be above the rules altogether by resorting to vigilante justice.

That's not a dichotomy. There are a whole range of possible ways of satisfying this demand that would exclude the Rorshachs without also excluding the Spider-Mans. I never claimed otherwise, nor did I write anything with that implication.

From now on, if you don't respond to my actual views, as expressed above, I'm not going to respond to you. There is just no point in talking to someone whose comments are addressed to a different, non-existing person. You might as well be talking to yourself.

Are you arguing that there shouldn't be any additional rules governing the behaviour of superheroes, such as 'don't kill people'?

Because that's the significance of the car analogy. We let people drive cars but there are various additional rules there for various sensible reasons like protecting members of the public from dangerous drivers.

And that's basically what I'm saying, yeah? That, in the context of a superhero story, superheroes should be allowed but we can't just let them do whatever they want in accordance with their own code. There needs to be some degree of deference to society and its rules concerning vigilantism.

But here you seem to be challenging the car analogy. Why?

Chessack said that heroes had the power to fight evil and this gave them the responsibility to do so.

I said that this wasn't enough.

And it's not. You think you have to add the principle that they can't kill, for example. I don't think that Chessack approves of heroes killing but I do think that the ethics of vigilantism are more complicated than he makes out and that this is worth exploring in fiction.

I never warped anything into a false dichotomy. I didn't even present a dichotomy, of any kind. On the contrary, I've been arguing for a 'middle-ground' position from the start. The only person warping the conversation is you by constantly trying to present me as someone claiming something I'm not.

I said that 'responsibility to uphold moral theory + power' is a recipe for disaster because 'moral theory' isn't specific enough to refer only to those moral theories safe enough to be upheld by very powerful beings as it could easily refer to e.g. Rorshach's version of Randian Objectivism. In order to get the desired results you would have to add a lot of extra information about which moral theory we were using. Because societies contain a plurality of often incompatible moral theories, you need to be very careful when you're designing its rules, especially when a set of people have declared themselves to be above the rules altogether by resorting to vigilante justice.

That's not a dichotomy. There are a whole range of possible ways of satisfying this demand that would exclude the Rorshachs without also excluding the Spider-Mans. I never claimed otherwise, nor did I write anything with that implication.

From now on, if you don't respond to my actual views, as expressed above, I'm not going to respond to you. There is just no point in talking to someone whose comments are addressed to a different, non-existing person. You might as well be talking to yourself.

Come on PDH, even YOU can't believe some of this argument. Peanut butter and jelly is much superior to bologna!

- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.- A character IS his continuity.- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.

And THAT is why you have no moral compass. You present a false dichotomy in that one MUST either accept peanut butter OR bologna without realizing there are multiple other options in between.

- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.- A character IS his continuity.- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.